Legacy Dimensioning vs Xact Measure

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legacy Dimensioning vs Xact Measure

    I’d like to get the forum’s thoughts on using Legacy Dimensioning vs Xact Measure GD&T Dimensioning.

    I always encourage the Xact Measure GD&T method and discourage using Legacy unless you know what you are doing. My reasoning being that Xact measure follows a Standard and leaves little room for error – or LESS room for error.

    What I’d be interested in hearing are the reasons why you would use Legacy as well as the reasons why you wouldn’t use Xact Measure.
    CMMXYZ Applications Specialist: PC-DMIS Support and Training. Check out my PC-DMIS tutorial videos... https://blog.cmmxyz.com/blog/tag/cmm-tech-tips

  • #2
    In my opinion, legacy keeps programmers honest.
    I can follow their alignment, and they don't get to just guess and hope for the best.

    Comment


    • Rploughe
      Rploughe commented
      Editing a comment
      also, legacy is easier to script with.

    • Kp61dude!
      Kp61dude! commented
      Editing a comment
      Oh yes this ^^^^

  • #3
    My biggest is the report output order. I haven't spent too much time trying to get Xact to print the way I like it, in Legacy Dimension #1 is right where I'd expect it to be. I don't know about you all but as soon as the data leaves QC dept no one seems to understand what they are looking at. Unless you spend the time to add some order to the report output you'll have multiple people pay you a visit.

    Dim 1 is first and the last... well it's the last. I deal with fully defined prints 90% of the time and hardly ever see MBD stuff. I like it that way.

    Plus I can see code doing what I intend on doing, Xact you have to imagine everything is 'right'. So, yes totally agree with you, you have to know what you're doing with Legacy ie. composite tolerance, maximum material boundary (not MMC lol), correct datum definition, etc...

    Not knocking on Xact...I don't use it, every time I tried I didn't get far due to disliking it. Different strokes for different folks.
    Last edited by Kp61dude!; 10-26-2018, 04:05 PM.
    PcDmis 2015.1 SP10 CAD++
    Global 7-10-7 DC800S

    Comment


    • #4
      Xact Meas and I have a sort off love/hate relationship. When first introduced (was it back in 2010 or so??) it promised plenty.
      Step right up folks! Get your GD&T with a click or two......but seldom delivered.
      As it stands today? It's pretty solid, but as with everything else Demon, I gotta babysit the output until am convinced it is giving proper results.
      But...... I don't know why Hexagon changed the UI for Xact in 2018, but it S-U-X. (that 'millennial' pleasing interface) Check out vpt.se's thread on 2018 issues for details.
      Plenty of problems contained therein, and I don't think it's only because Hexagon 'cannoli'd the visuals.
      I'd still be using 2017Rx if it wasn't for the fact that I NEED to use 2018R2. It's the only release that 2D profile works correctly for a Vision System.
      (one could look up the bug report except the old Tech Preview forums are no longer available)

      Comment


      • Kp61dude!
        Kp61dude! commented
        Editing a comment
        Millennial pleasing bahahaha!

      • louisd
        louisd commented
        Editing a comment
        When Xact first came out, Wilcox/Hexagon basically said don't use it, it's buggy and it won't produce accurate results. I never looked back into it, as I'm still stuck in 2012MR1, and don't have many FCF's to measure.

    • #5
      I use legacy method to 'verify' correct alignments and locational requirements, but as for positional; it seems that XACT is the way to go. Just as long as you select the 'correct' datums. The reason is, through various threads, that XACT will 'correctly' utilize the datum shift. Whereas legacy doesn't. But I'm using 2014.1.

      Comment


      • #6
        I really tried to get on board with xact, but I cant stand that you cant see your actual dimension in the edit window, and in the report window it gives you so much information which 99% of ppl don't need to even see. If you could dimension using xact, have it output in the report window like legacy, and have it come up in the edit window like legacy, I'd give it another shot.

        Comment


        • #7
          I feel like most people dont even know what exact is actually doing, but rather feel comfort in how it shows the callout so it looks just like your print, so it must be right, right? The general perception is that it is the magic tool that allows you to use GD&T without even knowing GD&T. (Which isnt really true) Please note: i said most people, not all.
          Last edited by william; 10-29-2018, 09:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #8
            Well aside from the fact I wouldn't trust it on my current version (2012mr1) I'd agree with all the above.

            1) Not properly visible in Edit Window
            2) More difficult to code with
            3) Too 'black box' for my liking, (Like Rploughe's keeping programmers honest comment)
            Automettech - Automated Metrology Technology

            Comment


            • #9
              Xact all the way here, except for the times I have to script some black magic.
              PC-DMIS CAD++ 2o19 R1 SP2

              Comment


              • #10
                I agree with 2013_junkie on some things, You can also see the outcome by using the "Status Window". This give you a preview as to dimensions and measurements. As long as you take the extra effort to 'Validate' the measurement data, you shouldn't have problem with XACT. I ALWAYS check and verify that the correct features, datums, etc are checked prior to reporting them.

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Kp61dude! View Post
                  My biggest is the report output order. I haven't spent too much time trying to get Xact to print the way I like it, in Legacy Dimension #1 is right where I'd expect it to be. I don't know about you all but as soon as the data leaves QC dept no one seems to understand what they are looking at. Unless you spend the time to add some order to the report output you'll have multiple people pay you a visit.
                  Kp61dude! could you elaborate on the difference in the report order between the two dimension types? I'm not sure what you mean.
                  CMMXYZ Applications Specialist: PC-DMIS Support and Training. Check out my PC-DMIS tutorial videos... https://blog.cmmxyz.com/blog/tag/cmm-tech-tips

                  Comment


                  • Jim Poehler
                    Jim Poehler commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I have also found that Xact measure does not report TP to QC Calc. It picks up xyzijk and datum shift. Generally picks up a whole list of useless information, all except for the one thing we are looking to record in QC Calc, that is the position of a feature. Don't know why so I generally try to use legacy myself, at least that spits out the correct information to QC Calc.

                • #12
                  The two most common criticisms of Xact measure I hear are:

                  1. Can't see results in the Edit Window
                  2. Don't trust the calculations.

                  Other comments I get are "I've never tried Xact Measure" or "I'm not sure how to use it." I have managed to convert a few non-believers over the years and I have no problem with programmers using Legacy when used properly (obviously). It's really the measured results we are after. I'd also encourage Legacy programmers to try Xact and compare the results - I do this all the time in Tech Support.

                  With the new way, as long as your datums are probed and defined correctly, you could simply fill out the Feature Control Frame and pcdmis should calculate correctly. Even if the programmer has a limited understanding of GD&T he or she could successfully report as per the drawing callout. Of course, the more you understand GD&T the better, and the more you understand alignment theory and datum precedence, the better. This goes without saying even though I just said it...Ha!

                  I'm with you guys on the Edit Window results issue. I'd like to see this changed, but I'm not sure if that's being considered at present. I get the sense that changing this would be a BIG deal and potentially problematic for the developers for various reasons. I'm sure those reasons have been addressed at some point on this forum. If anyone can find such a post, I'd be interested in reading it.

                  Thanks to all who provided their insights and opinions!
                  CMMXYZ Applications Specialist: PC-DMIS Support and Training. Check out my PC-DMIS tutorial videos... https://blog.cmmxyz.com/blog/tag/cmm-tech-tips

                  Comment


                  • #13
                    I use Xact for everything. Only reason for using legacy is if i'm getting bogus results or if i'm just double checking what Xact is measuring. I don't see a reason to not trust the calculations if you verify your work.

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      Like what was said above, I use both depending on a variety of reasons, using either I always check it both ways for reference. I do like using Xact for MMC datums and stuff instead of doing the math (lazy i know)

                      The one thing I wanted to add to the discussion is that I work in the automotive industry, and I run into this issue a lot... Some prints we get the GD&T and datum structures doesn't make sense. So I sometimes will have goofed up results or I will have to modify the order of datums in the FCF to fix it and it reads wrong in my reports then.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        Originally posted by Trevor McLaughlin View Post

                        Kp61dude! could you elaborate on the difference in the report order between the two dimension types? I'm not sure what you mean.
                        Sure I'll try.

                        If you're familiar with bubble/ballooned drawings it'll be much easier to imagine what I mean.

                        I layout my report output in the balloon order from least to greatest, I skip dimensions that are not captured with CMM. I color code the balloon by their operation too and PDF it to file. I can't say I've discovered something here but MANY have nice things to say about it. Edit: I comment every dimension callout too.

                        That's Legacy now in Xact...

                        Say you have 5 holes with a true position call out, you pick em' all, fill in the easy to use GUI, and viola. My issue is I don't see them in "order" as in the diameters of the 5 features are grouped and the axis in another along with the True Position values. Making it difficult to follow a balloon print.
                        Last edited by Kp61dude!; 11-02-2018, 08:08 AM.
                        PcDmis 2015.1 SP10 CAD++
                        Global 7-10-7 DC800S

                        Comment


                        • Jakep379
                          Jakep379 commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Ran into this issue switching to just strictly using Xact the report was harder to understand for many. Using report comments helped somewhat but when you're using simultaneous evaluation or just putting multiple holes in one FCF it always confuses many!

                      Related Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X